equalizer help

[bozmillar]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

I just got the go-ahead from Sound On Sound magazine to write an article about people's (misguided IMO) fascination with old technology. Watch for it in a few months.

--Ethan

Ha, that would be a fun article to write.

[jagcmos]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

I hope not! Digital EQ beats analog in every way one could assess fidelity. A digital EQ has no noise, almost unlimited headroom, and no distortion. It's also 100 percent repeatable, and most can save and recall settings.

Now, a digital EQ may not have the intentional distortion that Paul referred to as "mojo," but I don't want that from an EQ anyway. I want my EQ to EQ, and I'll add tape-sim or amp-sim plug-ins when I want distortion or extra hiss.

I just got the go-ahead from Sound On Sound magazine to write an article about people's (misguided IMO) fascination with old technology. Watch for it in a few months.

--Ethan

Cool. Please let us know when it gets published.

[brandondrury]

I just got the go-ahead from Sound On Sound magazine to write an article about people's (misguided IMO) fascination with old technology. Watch for it in a few months.

--Ethan

YES! I LOVE it when you piss 'em off Ethan!!! I've followed many of your epic battles on those "other" forums. When in doubt, ALWAYS listen to the guy who seems to have science on his side. That is pretty much always you.

Brandon

[mindundermatter]

Originally Posted by brandondrury

YES! I LOVE it when you piss 'em off Ethan!!! I've followed many of your epic battles on those "other" forums. When in doubt, ALWAYS listen to the guy who seems to have science on his side. That is pretty much always you.

Brandon

Yeah. I was one of those guys. I know better now. What Ethan says is law. All hail the eighth trumpet.

[garageband]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Digital EQ beats analog in every way one could assess fidelity.
-Ethan

'Cause we all know music is all about "fidelity".

[garageband]

I just got the go-ahead from Sound On Sound magazine to write an article about people's (misguided IMO) fascination with old technology.

Such as your 'cello?

[mindundermatter]

Originally Posted by garageband

Such as your 'cello?

Oh how I missed your quirky sarcasm, gb.

[paul999]

Originally Posted by Ethan Winer

Now, a digital EQ may not have the intentional distortion that Paul referred to as "mojo," but I don't want that from an EQ anyway. I want my EQ to EQ, and I'll add tape-sim or amp-sim plug-ins when I want distortion or extra hiss.
--Ethan

Congrats on the article!
The logic is sound in this statement and I could see this really working for some engineers. When I hear the lack of shrillness in my eq because of all that unwanted distortion and hiss they generate I know I'm not that engineer.

[bozmillar]

Originally Posted by mindundermatter

Yeah. I was one of those guys. I know better now. What Ethan says is law. All hail the eighth trumpet.

Sounds like you're not too wild about Ethan's claims. Here's an article to backup the "all digital eqs are the same" idea.

Digital EQ Fact & Myth. - signaltonoize.com

[brandondrury]

Yeah. I was one of those guys. I know better now. What Ethan says is law. All hail the eighth trumpet.

Well, I don't approach it like that. I couldn't imagine I'd prefer a digital EQ over that Great River MEQ-1NV I had for The Interrogator Sessions. That thing was the Jesus of EQ.

The point is there are some myths and if someone is arguing with the masses and has some data behind him, he usually has a point. However, this is all "art" and therefor no "law" is necessary. A person can just do it "wrong" and still come out with an amazing recording.

That's why I view these Ethan vs The World arguments from an entertainment perspective.

Brandon